Appeal No. 2006-2539 Page 5
Application No. 10/421,661
We agree with Appellants that the examiner has not shown that the process
taught by LaVon meets all the limitations of the instant claims. See Scripps Clinic &
Research Found. v. Genentech, Inc., 927 F.2d 1565, 1576, 18 USPQ2d 1001, 1010
(Fed. Cir. 1991) (“[A]nticipation requires that all of the elements and limitations of the
claim are found within a single prior art reference.”).
Here, the claims are directed to a process comprising applying “a thermoplastic
polyurethane in a molten or plastic state to a dimensionally stable structural layer (A)
formed of a rigid polymer composition.” As discussed above, the specification expressly
defines a “rigid polymer” as a “polymer that exhibits a Shore ‘D’ hardness of 40 or
higher . . . and/or exhibits a flex modulus above 15,000 psi.”
The examiner has argued that LaVon’s process meets that limitation because
LaVon states that the fibrous substrates of the disclosed diapers should have a tensile
strength of at least 1.5 N/cm. The examiner also asserted that 1.5 N/cm is equal to 2.2
psi and that tensile strength is directly proportional to flex modulus. The examiner
provided no basis for converting units of N/cm to psi, or for the proportionality of tensile
strength and flex modulus, but we will accept the accuracy of both statements for
present purposes.
Even assuming, however, that LaVon teaches that the fibrous substrate in
diapers should have a tensile strength of at least 2.2 psi and that tensile strength is
proportional to flex modulus, we do not agree that these teachings effectively disclose a
rigid polymer having a flex modulus of at least 15,000 psi. A disclosure of a range is not
a disclosure of every point within the range. See Atofina v. Great Lakes Chem. Corp.,
441 F.3d 991, 1000, 78 USPQ2d 1417, 1424 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[T]he disclosure of a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007